:I don't see any reason why either one of you would ''want'' false information in the article. I believe both of you believe that you're trying to make the article better. If you don't at least make an effort to work this out between the two of you, don't expect any help from me or any other Wikipedia admin. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496#top|talk]]) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:I don't see any reason why either one of you would ''want'' false information in the article. I believe both of you believe that you're trying to make the article better. If you don't at least make an effort to work this out between the two of you, don't expect any help from me or any other Wikipedia admin. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496#top|talk]]) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still out on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. [[User:Tintle|Tintle]] ([[User talk:Tintle|talk]]) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still put on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. [[User:Tintle|Tintle]] ([[User talk:Tintle|talk]]) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:51, 18 October 2010
If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).
I've seen your message here [1].
Štambuk's message [2] was from September 3.
Here's the history of edits in Talk:Croatian language [3].
My messages after his message were these [4] (Sep 18) and (restoring of deleted message) [5] (Sep 28).
Where did I used the phrases like "sod off" "nazi-pedia" (Štambuk used that term before, not in this particular case) and equalized opponents' sources with Stormfront?
I was polite, he was rude.
Please, don't equalize me with him "but your own response was so belligerent that you have equalized the sin.".
Man, you've hurted me with this. "I've equalized the sin"???? Are you serious?
I never use the expressions he uses. This is not the first time he used very heavy words.
What does it mean "be less calm" in that case? To not to react at all?
Looie496, not reacting to violence means approving it. Non reacting encourages the bully.
BTW, I see that you're not an admin ([6]). How come that you've appeared on that WQA? Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WQA is not a place to ask for help from admins, the place for that is WP:ANI. As it is explained at the top of the page, WQA is a place to ask people to give advice to editors who are behaving badly but are capable of changing. Your message to Ivan seemed very angry to me. You could simply have said, "that message was offensive, please don't say things like that." You are doing it again in this message to me -- I perceive it as very angry. Looie496 (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree.
The page WP:ANI has the line "here to start a new discussion thread".
When the window opens, there's a box above the editbox. It says: "If your request falls in one of the following categories, please click to go to the appropriate noticeboard.". And there, there's a link Civility problems. Final box at the right says "Other incidents that need administrator intervention."
Therefore, admins were supposed to sanction that "sod off" (strangely, page WQA says "this is non-binding..."). So, don't blame me. Someone else wrote those boxes and established the procedures. I've just tried to follow the procedure. I intended to post that directly to WP:ANI, but the links turned me to the other path.
That means that WQA must discourage any "sod off" and etiquetting the opponents with Stormfront.
But anyway, how can you equalize the "sod off" with this?
And you're candidating for adminship?
Man, you've failed. Instead of discouraging attacks like "sod off", you're encouraging it with that.
As far as I see, [7], currently it's 59:2 for you. Congratulations if you become an admin. Please, have my notification in mind.
Please, please, please. I'm begging you. Don't allow the behaviour like Štambuk's (case "sod off") and don't equalize his attacks with the reports of the opponents' that were insulted with such messages. Equalizing the attacker with the victim is not good as an way of approaching this problem, it is like saying that a victim deserves his/her treatment from the bully. Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them.
Otherwise, you're putting a nail in the Wikipedia's coffin.
I hope that my message helped you to understand me.
If you find my message "too angry", always have in mind "how would I feel if someone told me or to my "side" "sod off".
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project. It requires scientific approach and dialogue.
I believe that in the neuroscientists' conventions opponents never say "sod off" to each other, nor they criticize the works of others in the magazines with the "Yada, yada. Your shaming language doesn't work here. Either provide evidence for your numerous statements which have been repeatedly refuted, or sod off back to Acta (your science), Stormfront (Your Homeland) or wherever your ilk congregates. BTW, I suggest that you read ..., which dispels many of the myths that you believe in." [8].
Thank You for your previous quick reply and for your patience for reading my long message. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question
I'll put this here instead of on your RfA, as it's not directly related to your candidacy, but I'm curious - what do you dislike about the FAC process? And do you dislike it from the perspective of a nominator or reviewer? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of the problem is that the FA process focuses on dotting i's and crossing t's rather than on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of content. Even if a reviewer comes along who cares about content, the structure of the process doesn't allow issues to be explored in sufficient depth. Also the sourcing rules make it nearly impossible to create an FA about a broad topic for which much of the information is found in textbooks. For example I would love to make Brain into an FA, but the idea of finding the right page of the right textbook for every statement in the article is too much for me. I personally have found the GA process to be more useful, if you have the luck to get a good reviewer -- and most of the people who review scientific topics seem to be pretty good. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Looie,
Thank you for the response. I would certainly like to contribute to the articles you mentioned (after I have researched and grasped the basics), if you think such a visual aid would help in understanding the subject matter. Please give a brief (and - at least at the moment - simple) outline of the ideas / concepts you want to visualise (aka visualize) in these clips.
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing where an animation can really help is to show the process of synaptic transmission as a series of events: (1) voltage rises in axon terminal (2) calcium ions flow into axon terminal (3) synaptic vesicles attach to the membrane and release their contents (4) neurotransmitter particles from vesicles move across the membrane and bind to receptor channels (5) receptor channels open (6) ions flow into postsynaptic area through open channels (7) particles break away from receptors and channels close (8) particles get reabsorbed into axon terminal via reuptake pumps. This is something that seems very complicated if you read a description (as you can probably tell) but seems much simpler if you watch it happen. And it's the fundamental operation of the nervous system -- the single most important thing that students need to understand. Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Looie. I will check the relevant articles (plus links) and engage in some brain storming. In case of local synaptic malfunctions I may aks for help in understanding some detail. When available, I will post some screenshots / a quickie video clip, so you can evaluate the content and the visual treatment for a feedback. Cheers from Vienna and have a pleasant day. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If it's helpful, here is a link to an existing animation that shows most of the process, just leaving out the last two steps I mentioned. It isn't usable on Wikipedia because of copyright, and there is plenty of room for varying the appearance of things. Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks, very useful. Question: Chemical elements (in ball & stick models, etc) seem to have standardised colours (grey for C, red for O, etc). Are there any "normal" colours for Ca++ and Na+ ions which should be used in the model? Oops and good morning, I forgot to sign. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a tremendous amount to have accomplished in such a short time! I've done some basic animations myself and know how much work it is. Anyway, I think it would get out of hand to try to deal with everything at once, so let me start with the initial state. At the beginning, there are two things that the viewer needs to notice: first, there should be at least a dozen small holes in the membrane that the calcium ions will later move through. Second, there should be several vesicles, quite a bit smaller that the one you show, with at least one of them sitting right next to the membrane at the bottom. Each vesicle should be full of little particles, or at least have a granular appearance. I don't think it matters what color is used for the calcium ions -- I would probably use blue, but not for any particular reason. In the animation I pointed you to, the arrival of the action potential is indicated by a line moving across the presynaptic terminal, but I think it could equally well -- more accurately in fact -- be depicted by a brightening of the color of the presynaptic terminal. Another thing is that I thought your vocals in the examples you showed at the Ref Desk were actually very effective -- they sound a bit unusual to an American, but in a nice way, and are very easy to understand. I think that vocals would work better than scrolling text, which distracts the viewer's attention from the other visuals. But this aspect could be left until the end, I think. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last version with some tweaks as per your suggestions above. I have overwritten the old file, so the link above gets you to the current version. The Ca++ gates ("holes") in the axon terminal will have to be improved, but I ran out of time. I guess the vesicle which carries the action in the Na+ ion flow should also include more acetylcholine molecules, but they would just sit there and block the view. Maybe I get some ideas after a snooze. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added a voice over. If I get into trouble tomorrow (well, today, we are 2 hours ahead of GMT / UTC), for practising the pronunciation of "acetylcholine" in the subway I will give your name and address :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used a morphing trick to simulate the voltage gated channels on the axon bouton. Would that be a useful method? I assume the calcium gates are not permanently active (ie no "holes" at the very start of the filmlet) but only open when the potential rises and then close again to block "floating" Ca++ ingressing into the bulb. The clip is now the "standard" 60 seconds. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI about the blocking policy
So, I noticed that an editor brought up this edit of yours from a month ago. You may wish to take a look at a few sentences from Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings: "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking....On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." Just as an FYI for when you pass RFA (hopefully :)) Best, NW(Talk)21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My experience at AIV has been that in cases like that one, if there hasn't been a final warning, the editor doesn't get blocked. But thanks for the pointer. Looie496 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is very ridiculous how bureaucratic some administrators are. But remember, you don't have to be that way after your RFA passes! NW(Talk)14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
disclosure
In scientific journals, authors and speakers (at meetings) make disclosures, like if they are on the speaker's bureau of a company or if they received grant money.
I made a similar suggestion that editors disclose conflict of interests, perhaps on the talk page of an article. This was violently opposed.
Your opinion? I don't like the fact that I can write about my employer and engage in conflicts of interest. Therefore, I don't but could easily do so.
I think the reason is that people do want to have conflicts of interest (some people) and others don't want Wikipedia to be ugly and have anything that comes close to a disclaimer. However, those who are completely honest and have transparency are the better ones and Wikipedia would be better if this were the case. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is generally a good thing for people to disclose any conflicts of interest they have. But creating a rule about this might cause editors to start investigating other editors in order to see whether they have conflicts of interest, and I think that would be a bad thing to encourage. It isn't clear to me exactly what you are proposing, though. Looie496 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi Looie, sorry I didn't vote in your RfA. Thought I'll leave the reasons here than mention it in the RfA section. Actually, I would have loved a comprehensive answer to my question and as you couldn't provide an answer - after having made a statement in your nom section - I was in two minds what to write as a reply to your answer. In short, all in all, I thought that as you anyway would get your administrator flag soon, there was particularly nothing useful in my following up my question :) So in advance to you, congrats on your impending adminship - it'll be wonderful to have you around. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message13:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and thanks for the explanation. I actually wrote that sentence a year ago, when I first started thinking about RfA, and left it in without giving it a great deal of thought. But really, thinking about it further, even if I had been able to pull up an example I probably wouldn't have been willing to show it -- a person who does that sort of thing is acting in good faith, even if erroneously in my opinion, and ought not to be exposed in the harsh light of an RfA. Looie496 (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your RfA - it's so rare that someone I feel strongly about is up there that I don't watchlist the page. Anyhow, you're one of the exceptions. You will make an excellent admin - I'm sorry I missed the chance to support your candidacy, but it looks like the community recognized your merits without my 2 cents. Congratulations; enjoy the extra buttons, and try not to let it suck the enjoyment out of the site. Best of luck, keep up the good work, and just drop me a note if there's anything I can help with. MastCellTalk04:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, congratulations on your Adminship, Looie! :)
May I ask you to comment on something, though, that has me a bit perplexed?
It's about this edit you made, "hiding" a question in apparent support of Roux. May I ask why you did that? It seems TOAT has also now blocked the RD visitor indefinitely. Please see my question to him concerning this at his talk page, which includes diffs as to this alleged trouble-maker's activities leading up to the block. Briefly, there was one instance of very mild vandalism, and then a very harsh warning by Roux, and then the block for some reason. Equally unclear to me is why you would want to "hide" a question about magnetism. Could you please explain to me the justification for that in this case? Was it just on Roux's say-so? Because... there was no "trolling" going on in that question, nor anything wrong with the responses, so it seems very curious to me why you would suggest that "we" listen to Roux about something and "hide" this quite valid question (as "non-serious" as the questioner may indeed have asked it, but nevertheless asked it in a perfectly acceptable way). Thanks! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk)06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Roux tried to explain, there is a song by a group called Insane Clown Posse that contains the line "Fucking magnets, how do they work?", and some people seem to think it's cool to take that question to the Ref Desk -- in showed up in that exact form a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, I looked through all of that editor's contribs, and there was only one I saw that might not have been vandalism, and even that one I wasn't sure about. Looie496 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Personally, I directed the OP to the Magnet article and hoped to leave it at that. But, look at the question and responses. Are we really to "close" a discussion about magnetism that was perfectly innocuously phrased (no foul language, direct and to the point) simply because the OP committed a very typical, entirely mild and "normal" act of vandalism on an unrelated article? Much less indefinitely block that user for that offense...?! (Though I know you didn't do the blocking). This seems quite unusual and unnecessary to me. I don't really mind your "boxing" it, though I honestly believe there may be some counterproductive over-reaction going on here. As it stands, with the user blocked, I suppose the question can simply be removed altogether on that ground alone. If the user gets unblocked, though, would you mind if I removed your "box" from the question? I just do not see the need, and am concerned about some of the "over-response" I've been seeing at the RD to this kind of thing lately. Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk)07:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would mind, actually. If this had simply been a question followed by "See magnet", I wouldn't have felt any need to do anything. The problem with this sort of thing is all the time-wasting back-and-forth it provokes. A user who posts something like this is basically laughing at the Wikipedia nerds who are too stupid to get the joke. The best response to something like that is to ignore it, but if it gets beyond the point of being ignorable, the second best response is to take decisive action. Your response would have been okay; Roux's response would have been okay; what is not okay is arguing about it, which amounts to feeding the trolls. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this has nothing to do with my "preferred version." If you will see the talk page discussion, you will see that this has been discussed, and the anon. user who has repeatedly removed the information has been at this for years. Page protection was requested to prevent his vandalism, not to preserve my notion of how the article should read. I have been at this long enough to know better than to make such a request. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'03:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add that comment at RFPP. If you do, I'll add a comment saying that I'm not going to protect the page, but I don't object in any way if another admin feels protection is appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote:
"Here's the deal. We've had enormous disruption caused by combative editing on articles related to The Troubles, from both sides. The only way to keep things under control has been to follow a zero tolerance policy, rigorously enforced. Your edit was combative, regardless of whether you think so, and reverting to put it back violated the letter of the policy. We've been down this road dozens of times, and there isn't going to be any argument about the issues: either follow the restrictions, or your IP address will be blocked. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"
I feel your explanation was rather curt. Please explain to me how my edit was combative. I stated facts. I did not use any inflammatory language, I simply stated the truth.
One particular contributor, O'Fenian, has an obvious agenda and ensures that articles reflect his political ideologies and views on all things Irish. I myself am Irish and take issue with articles that portray Unionists as evil and omit relevant information regarding Irish events.
I have on a few occasions edited and he has immediately reversed them based on his opinions, not fact. An example of this is the Michael Stone article. I stated that mourners included known terrorists, this is fact. I stated names of individuals that have admitted to being members of the IRA. He does not believe the IRA are terrorists, this is his opinion, but surely anyone with a modicum of common sense would not object to this.
Let me again state my intention is not to cause any disruption, I simply want to add value and relevant information where it is missing.
Hello Looie496. I notice you hardblocked Al-RaShit (talk·contribs) for creating a grossly inappropriate username. Could you watch out for names like this where a) it could easily be a real name or a fan of the band, and b) there is no evidence it was created in bad faith. If in any doubt about the user's intentions of violating Wikipedia policy, which you usually can't tell from usernames containing profanity, please softblock or don't block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Band? What band? I'm reasonably familiar with Arabic names, and I see no way that capital S was placed there in anything other than bad faith. For what it's worth, I placed the block before seeing the comment that had been added, and wasn't deliberately overriding another opinion. But in any case, thank you for the feedback, and I'll allow your comment to guide me in the future. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What band? That is probably my main point. (Rashit). Even if it was an incredibly bad choice of name, there is no evidence at all that it was created in bad faith. FWIW I'm not aware of any comments, but noticed a couple of bad hardblocks in your blocking log. I tend to point these out to new admins, as it's a classic new admin mistake. Thanks for the consideration. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think there are inevitably going to be discrepancies in how different admins handle things at UAA, because of differences in background knowledge -- what one sees as certainly bad faith may look innocuous to another, as for example I have no idea why "Mingebetty" would be problematic. But in any case, I'll try to recalibrate my threshold a bit. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, maybe it's just a British thing. Grossly inappropriate - yes; evidently bad faith - not necessarily. So it was hardblocked only after vandalising. That's an extreme one, but the majority of these types of usernames fall in this middle ground between bad faith and innocuous, where they can't be blamed for choosing a username they may have used elsewhere for years without any complaint at all. You can see this in many endless time-consuming and editor-deterring unblock appeals. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are other editors making substantial changes to NPOV policy without consensus. I think editors are complaining about my improvements not behaviour to NPOV policy. Do you think this is appropriate admin behaviour by you Looie496 to claim I am being disruptive when other editors are causing the problems with drastic changes to NPOV policy.
What do you mean by "you need to pull back here". I think you could look a little more closely at the edits all editors have made and undestand who is doing a great job of improving NPOV and who is making unproductive edits to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should really know better by now than to expect that sort of argument to work. If you can't persuade other editors to agree with you, you can't get your way in the dispute. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs of major changes[10][11][12] were rejected by other editors too. Do you agree that other editors have made substantial deletions to text to NPOV policy without consensus. I don't have to persuade other editors about restoring the section. Other editors have commented on the talk page to keep the section per consensus.[13][14]QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFA's are commonly protected because of a high level of vandalism. I don't see a reason to leave it unprotected, it would just waste the vandal fighters time. In some cases TFA's are protected for a few hours. --Inka888ContribsTalk21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the history and saw at least two experienced admins had made reverts very recently, and were clearly keeping constant watch on the article. They were in an excellent position to decide whether protection is warranted. To my understanding protection is generally only applied to TFAs if the vandalism is so fast that it can't be controlled. Note that any given vandal-fighter always has the option of leaving that article to others to deal with. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that block templates be signed. In cases of simple vandalism or other basic misbehavior, all it does is increase the chance of the editor taking revenge by vandalizing the admin's pages. Note though that I'm a brand new admin, so if you think I'm misunderstanding policy or doing something wrong, I'm open to having it explained to me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to say congratulations on becoming an administrator Looie, :-) and survived the request for adminship process; it looks like a stressful process having to undergo all those questions and public scrutiny. It is nice to see you are taking an interest in ArbCom enforcement, an area which requires neutral as well as firm but fair admins (something that I know you are and will be). Good job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid that I made a very explicit promise at my RfA not to do deletions -- I'm too weak on policy in that area to take it on. So I'm afraid somebody else will have to handle that backlog -- but I'll try to take a bit of the load off in other areas. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection in a content dispute
FYI - See WP:SILVERLOCK. In reference to the protection on the DZMB article, in cases of a content dispute, full protection should generally be used. Semi-protection should only be used if all parties are IPs or non-autoconfirmed users. Congratulations on your new mop. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. It's really a case where IP's are disrupting an article by repeatedly inserting unsourced information -- I guess in future I'll go by the book by labeling that as "disruption" rather than a content dispute. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline doesnt play a factor, unsourced and vandalism determin if an article should be protected or not. And FYI, the deletion is 8-0 for keep. Can you protect it? :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Looie496. Sorry for the trouble but could you possibly remind user:Nazar to be civil in his comments. Please see my reply to them here. There has been a long pattern of incivility by this user directed mainly toward me in discussions involving Prahlad Jani and Inedia. I simply cannot participate in discussions when the well is poisoned by such remarks. I believe this is harmful to Wikipedia because it stifles properly framed discussions based on ideas and not on personal attacks. Nazar has been warned in the past repeatedly about personal attacks against me by user:McGeddon as well. Thank you for your time. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to engage with that editor, he has been warned that further edit-warring in the article will lead to a block. Your best response is to ignore him. If he continues to post long messages on the talk page in spite of not getting responses, I will intervene at that point. The incivility itself is not at a level I feel compelled to respond to. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your valuable and useful advice. I accept your arguments including your evaluation of the level of incivility. Thank you for taking the time. Take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. The issue is that if you read my post, you should have seen that Off2riorob has reverted three times in the last day against two editors. The talk page shows that there is not agreement for his version. Editors disagreeing with him, besides me, are here, here and here. When I asked him to join the discussion he simply posted an insult on my talk page. I have not reverted once. My question is, what about this makes you think I am trying to get myself sanctioned? Mackan79 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not repeated any of the conduct that lead to my topic ban, I have been at great pains to avoid a repeat of that. I have attempted to discuss the matter in the talk page, I have not attempted to force content into the article, I have attempted to obtain consensus on the talk page. I do not believe my conduct was disruptive.
However, I have discovered that one editor is seriously misrepresenting his sources, which you will note was mentioned in the case. My edit proposals are also being seriously misrepresented, then that used to discredit them. The editor I attempted to issue a WQA against is continuing with the same battleground mentality that lead to the dispute in the first place. There is a presumption that because they escaped sanction their hands are clean, the sanctions also apply to them.
I have proposed content that is relevant, well written, sourced and written to conform to NPOV. Even though acknowledging that Richard is vetoing its inclusion and the arguments for doing so don't stack up.
I would request that you please take the time to actually look at the talk page. From my perspective it appears that you've simply looked at the arbcom case and in 30s decided I'd returned to my old form. This really isn't the case I have made a real effort to avoid a repeat of that. Your message is tantamount to banning me from contributing to areas of wikipedia where I do have knowledge and would like to contribute. Justintalk19:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
128.104.truth
I appreciate your comments about 128.104.truth at ANI [16], and the warning on their page about stalking the edits of another user. I see your point about his edits not being actual vandalism. However, when he returned to Wikipedia and saw your warning, his next three edits were all to articles that had been edited immediately prior by Off2RioRob [17][18][19]. These are all minor edits, true, but they also seem to be very pointy choices of articles. Since your comment and warning pretty much ended the previous discussion, I figured I'd come to you first, rather than start a new discussion at ANI. Thanks again for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say he may have an argument (maybe, there are other similar issues, this may not be as notable as he thinks) for 2012 (although he did post to the talk page and got no support), but definitely not for September 18 where he was reverted 17 times. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pawnee Bill Ranch
The Pawnee Bill Ranch page is for a museum that is owned and operated by the Oklahoma Historical Society. I am asking that the page be edited because the invididual involved is using personal opinion to write the page. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Ranch was built using slave labor. The ranch was constructed in 1910 using professional builders and it was not a Sears Home. It was designed and built by the architect James Hamilton from Chester, Pennsylvania. The building is not experiencing structural damage as is suggested and is certainly not riddled with mold. Please check out www.pawneebillranch.org for the official site on the Ranch to make your own decision if you wish. The hours of operations listed on the wiki page are completely innacurate. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why either one of you would want false information in the article. I believe both of you believe that you're trying to make the article better. If you don't at least make an effort to work this out between the two of you, don't expect any help from me or any other Wikipedia admin. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still put on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. Tintle (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will continue to fight for my case and present the evidence that is true even as the other user continues to change it. If I'm to be banned for it, then so be it.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
